I'm not quite sure what you mean by "recent split". For the moment, ECUSA is still part of the Anglican Communion, but there is a lot going on and I don't know what the end will be. One of the events coming up that is very important is the bishops getting together for the Lambeth Conference which is to happen in July. Here's some info on that:http://www.lambethconference.org/

Once I understand what your question referred to, I'll be more able to answer this one.

Hi again, Ebor. The recent split to which I am referring is these 9 Virginia churches (including Falls Church) which recently left TEC. They joined, at least temporarily, the Anglican Church of Uganda.

Quote

Which particular one have you read and do you mean the Episcopal Church or America the country? (I apologize for being a bit thick at the moment. I just want to know more clearly what should be addressed) There has been a good bit of turmoil and goings-on between Canterbury (as well as many of the other members of the Communion) for some time.

I wasn't clear. I should have said the archbishop's criticism of the American government.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England and the "First among equals" of all of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. He is much like the situation of the EP re the EO Churches in that regard. Recall that the Communion is made up of a number of national or regional Churches.

How many Primates are there?

Thanks.

Logged

born Catholic, became a Protestant, now and hereafter an Orthodox Christian

Hi again, Ebor. The recent split to which I am referring is these 9 Virginia churches (including Falls Church) which recently left TEC. They joined, at least temporarily, the Anglican Church of Uganda.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Well, right now things are still in turmoil there and in other places. I haven't had a chance to read much about it this week, but there's some legal action going on with complications. It would have been preferable if the parishes did not think that the split was necessary. It would have been preferable if other ways could have been found. This is a very complicated thing with it happening in many places including an entire diocese breaking away from ECUSA, which has led to the Presiding Bishop issuing something like an inhibition against that bishop. I need to get more data.

Quote

I wasn't clear. I should have said the archbishop's criticism of the American government.

I'm afraid I can't read that thread. Is it in the "Politics" forum? I've never joined there, but I should ask a mod to permit me just so I can read things. I'll try to find out more, but I see no reason why the Archbishop should not criticize the US Government if he thinks that there's something wrong. He, as a religious leader, could very well have something to say. I will say that I think +Rowan to be a very thoughtful man.

Henry VIII was not a "Protestant"---in fact, he burnt subjects espousing typical Protestant theological beliefs. His issue was supremacy, not theology. (Elizabeth was also very conservative, BTW---high-church, pro-vestments, traditional theology, prejudiced against married clergy.)

Nevertheless, the dissolution of the monasteries took place in several waves during Henry's reign, some of it quite violently. Hardly a Catholic or Orthodox thing to do.

The conclusion I reach from the above is that the Anglican answer isthey do not know. Edited to add: More specifically, the AnglicanChurch does not know. Individual Anglicans may choose tobelieve RP or not.

Like Ebor writes, Anglicans accept the Communion by faithand don't question further, or as Keble seems to say, it's not our issue.So, they, as a church, don't really know. Am I right?

Sorry for my tone.

I think you realistically have it about right. When I was an Anglican, and Catechist, (oh, and webmaster), I used to have a section on the website called "Ask the Catechist" where people could submit questions to be answered by the Catechetical team (including our rector). One time, somebody asked what the Episcopal Church believed about Mary and the Saints. My response began, roughly, that it was difficult to know what the Episcopal/Anglican view was on very much at all. This is simply because of the extremely wide range of acceptable belief. Of course, in the ECUSA (the "official" Anglican Church of the U.S. - and please no sniping about CANA or AMIA or ACN, or any of the others - I mean official in the very narrow sense of being recognized by Rowan Williams et al.) you can be the Presiding Bishop and apparently not believe in a lot of basic Christian doctrines. To make a boring story short, my response ultimately was based on the prayer book and the hymns. To a certain degree, that will, similar to Orthodoxy, give you a decent sense of what acceptable beliefs would be.

The one thing not mentioned here, though, is the 39 articles. While now merely an historical relic in the ECUSA, belief in these used to be required by at least the clergy, if not the laity. Of note would be Article 28:

Quote

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

In general, these articles reflect a much more reformed era in the Church. John Henry Newman, shortly before becoming Catholic wrote an extensive tract attempting to square the very "Romish" (and this coming from a former AngloCatholic) opinions of the Oxford movement with the 39 articles. Basically, what Newman came down to doing is pointing out the inconsistencies between the words of the 39 articles and what was allowed to be preached, and justifying the movement's opinions. Here, then, lies the other problem. Belief is not at all static, but seems to change with time. In the early 19th Century (1840's or so), there was a series published known as the Library of AngloCatholic theology. It contained, among other things, "Hammond's Practical Catechism", a 17th century text asserting that it was entirely inappropriate to take the Lord's words to mean that his body and blood were really present in the Sacrament. By the 1890's, the Church Club (another AngloCatholic body) published some lectures where they said clearly you have no choice, based on Scripture alone, to believe in the real presence.

I have to admit that reading Hammond's Practical Catechism helped push me out of the Episcopal Church. I was attempting to moderate my beliefs by adhering to the Anglican Divines and the like - looking toward early Anglicanism. I just couldn't do it.

Finally, one other note. As Ebor has mentioned, there were a lot of politics around the break between England and Rome. Among those political issues were things having nothing to do with Henry or the Tudor's. Historically, Parliament (with their limited powers back then) had attempted to limit Rome's influence in English government - especially with regard to Peter's pence. With little effect, but nonetheless, the desire was there on the part of people outside of the Royal family to limit or eliminate Rome's presence.

It contained, among other things, "Hammond's Practical Catechism", a 17th century text asserting that it was entirely inappropriate to take the Lord's words to mean that his body and blood were really present in the Sacrament. By the 1890's, the Church Club (another AngloCatholic body) published some lectures where they said clearly you have no choice, based on Scripture alone, to believe in the real presence.

I have to admit that reading Hammond's Practical Catechism helped push me out of the Episcopal Church. I was attempting to moderate my beliefs by adhering to the Anglican Divines and the like - looking toward early Anglicanism. I just couldn't do it.

Followup question. Who was Hammond? Was his catechism widely used in the church? And, I can't resist, what makes it "Practical," like T.S. Eliot? Thanks. Ebor, feel free to give your perspective on all this.

Logged

born Catholic, became a Protestant, now and hereafter an Orthodox Christian

Thanks for your response, Anceint Faith. It is very revealing and thorough.

Followup question. Who was Hammond? Was his catechism widely used in the church? And, I can't resist, what makes it "Practical," like T.S. Eliot? Thanks. Ebor, feel free to give your perspective on all this.

Here's his biography. I confess to not knowing how wide his Catechism was used, but it was focused on the practice of one's faith, hence it was more practical. I was recommended his Catechism by a fellow AngloCatholic as being very good. When I read it (or more correctly, the sections that I read), I couldn't believe that this was supposed to be good AngloCatholicism. It wasn't much like the AngloCatholicism that I knew, but maybe we were closer to AngloPapalists, as one priest I knew referred to himself.